Hi Krzysztof, krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:51:29 -0400: > On 27/10/2022 09:50, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:24:24 -0400: > > > >> On 27/10/2022 09:18, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >>> Hi Vadym, > >>> > >>>>>>> +patternProperties: > >>>>>>> + "^nand@[0-3]$": > >>>>>>> + type: object > >>>>>>> + properties: > >>>>>>> + reg: > >>>>>>> + minimum: 0 > >>>>>>> + maximum: 3 > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + nand-rb: > >>>>>>> + minimum: 0 > >>>>>>> + maximum: 1 > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + nand-ecc-strength: > >>>>>>> + enum: [1, 4, 8] > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + nand-on-flash-bbt: true > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + nand-ecc-mode: true > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + nand-ecc-algo: > >>>>>>> + description: | > >>>>>>> + This property is essentially useful when not using hardware ECC. > >>>>>>> + Howerver, it may be added when using hardware ECC for clarification > >>>>>>> + but will be ignored by the driver because ECC mode is chosen depending > >>>>>>> + on the page size and the strength required by the NAND chip. > >>>>>>> + This value may be overwritten with nand-ecc-strength property. > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + nand-ecc-step-size: > >>>>>>> + description: | > >>>>>>> + Marvell's NAND flash controller does use fixed strength > >>>>>>> + (1-bit for Hamming, 16-bit for BCH), so the actual step size > >>>>>>> + will shrink or grow in order to fit the required strength. > >>>>>>> + Step sizes are not completely random for all and follow certain > >>>>>>> + patterns described in AN-379, "Marvell SoC NFC ECC". > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + label: > >>>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + partitions: > >>>>>>> + type: object > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not what I asked for. Like four times I asked you to add here > >>>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false and I never said that ref to partition.yaml > >>>>>> should be removed and you... instead remove that ref. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You need to define here children and specify their ref. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You must use unevaluatedProperties: false here. So this is fifth time I > >>>>>> am writing this feedback. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It is a bit confusing that it is needed to define "partitions" and "label" rules particulary > >>>>> in this nand controller instead of some common place like nand-chip.yaml, these properties > >>>>> are common also for the other nand controllers. > >>>> > >>>> No one speaks about label, I never commented about label, I think... > >>>> > >>>> If you think the property is really generic and every NAND controller > >>>> bindings implement it, then feel free to include them there, in a > >>>> separate patch. It sounds sensible, but I did not check other bindings. > >>> > >>> FYI, label is already defined in mtd/mtd.yaml. > >> > >> Which is not included here and in nand-controller.yaml > > > > Maybe nand-chip.yaml should? > > mtd.yaml looks a bit more than that - also allows nvmem nodes. Maybe > let's just add label to nand-chip? I don't get the reason behind this proposal, mtd.yaml really is kind of a definition of generic properties any mtd device might have, so duplicating label (or whatever else inside) does not seem legitimate to me. The jedec,spi-nor.yaml file already references it for instance. > >>> Partitions do not need to be defined in your binding, just don't put > >>> any in your example and you'll be fine. These partitions are either > >>> static and may be described in the DT (see > >>> mtd/partition/partition.yaml) or there is some dynamic discovery > >>> involved and a proper parser shall be referenced (parsers have their > >>> own binding). > >> > >> I don't think this is correct. Basically you allow any node to be under > >> partitions as there is no schema validating them (without compatibles). > > > > Sorry if that was unclear, what I meant is: partitions should not be > > defined in the bindings for Marvell NAND controller because they should > > be defined somewhere else already. > > Ah, right. Then it seems reasonable. > > > > > NAND controller subnodes should define the storage devices (the > > flashes themselves) connected to the controller. "nand-chip.yaml" > > describes generic properties for these. Additional subnodes are allowed > > and expected to be partitions (this is not enforced anywhere I think), > > they should use one of the existing compatibles to define the parser. > > The most common parser is named fixed-partitions and has its own > > compatible. Every parser references partitions.yaml. > > > > There are a few controller bindings however which reference > > partition.yaml anyway, probably to make the examples validation work, > > I'm not sure it should be done like that though: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-nand.yaml > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > > Yes, so the nand-chip implementation (like Marvell NAND) could reference > the parser and we would be done. If it doesn't, then we must have > generic partitions in the nand-chip. In this case, I am not aware of any parser that would be relevant. In the generic case, should we really reference a parser in particular? If yes then maybe we should make a yaml file that just gathers all the parsers and include it within mtd.yaml (and have it referenced in nand-chip.yaml). What do you think? Thanks, Miquèl
